what's the most dense object ever such as iron,metal,etc?

A black hole.

You can buy those in Walmart for $2.99

neutron stars are quite dense too

here's a nice input on neutron stars (http://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/nstar.html)

Neutron stars are the collapsed cores of some massive stars. They pack roughly the mass of our Sun into a region the size of a city.

At these incredibly high densities, you could cram all of humanity into a volume the size of a sugar cube. Naturally, the people thus crammed wouldn't survive in their current form, and neither does the matter that forms the neutron star. This matter, which starts out in the original star as a normal, well-adjusted combination of electrons, protons, and neutrons, finds its peace (aka a lower energy state) as almost all neutrons in the neutron star. These stars also have the strongest magnetic fields in the known universe. The strongest inferred neutron star fields are nearly a hundred trillion times stronger than Earth's fields, and even the feeblest neutron star magnetic fields are a hundred million times Earth's, which is a hundred times stronger that any steady field we can generate in a laboratory.

If you are looking for the most dense earthly object...the answer is George Bush. Or wait, maybe it is Al Gore. Oh well nevermind.

is this the free thoughts forum. fading? :bugeye:

Sorry...I tried to make a joke. I will refrain :D

what's the most dense object

You might consider the nucleus of an atom. Although the nucleus occupies 1 trillionth the volume of an atom, it contains 99.9% of the atom's mass.

this link is quite interesting, too. i hope you find time to check it out.


http://edge.box.sk/newsread.php?newsid=19

Technically you can make any material denser with enough energy up until their outermost electron orbits intersect. After that point the material loses all its electrons and becomes degenerate matter, like that of a neutron star.

The most dense material is the tissue of the human brain (if you look at the density as number of (under)objects in an object...)

:bugeye: how do you figure?

1 DvD van 1.5 hour = 6 GB memory space (on HD) which means that to register something for 1 hour costs 4 GB of brain-memory space. Using two eyes I must double this 8 GB an hour:

Info which I get into my brain and hold is then (8 GB an hour) 70.000 GB per year. 35 years = 2.500.000 GB in the space of my brain. It is an unimaginable density of REGISTERED info in the brain-memory space.....(that's what I meant)

:bugeye:


you must have a VERY heavy brain.

Well by element of the periodic table, it is either osium or iridium, it is hard to tell which one is more dense because of the different isoptes in iridum, but i belive that irdium takes the title with density of 22.65 grams a cubic centimeter and osium 22.61 grams a cubic cm.
Most Dense Material
IRIDIUM 22.65 grams a cubis centimeter

There are probally some ways to condense matter as much of atoms and rocks ect have lots of emoty space and cavities ect, how ever these spaces are not actually empty they contain other enegry, so to change space cahnges energy and changes the substance.
a neutron star, would be a mass or protons converted into neutrons, due to a change in energy,and space.
Hydrogen electron orbital have 5 n quntum, colavent radius of 0.37 Angstroms(Diatomic)
Iridium or osium of the elemetal chart is also the end point of atomic stablity, kind of like hydrogen is the begining, it at least that way on earth. so elements like gold and platiunium mercury and lead ect all the way up to uranium are elements in transmutaion atomically. they my have been stable in earth a long time ago, when earths orbit around the sun was different by some 500,000 miles,million ect....



Why do you want to know the denses material

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Well That is Very intresting, Memory of the brain, to use mor than 1 to 10 % of the brain, denser mind, sounds great. i will have to take a note on the gigabyte formula,
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

I never realised procop had two dvd recorders in place of eye sockets.

just curious. I'm reading this chinese novel and the main character in it handles a 110-130 pound iron sword. strange is that it's only 3 feet long.

Originally posted by On Radioactive Waves
I never realised procop had two dvd recorders in place of eye sockets.
Procop is a rambling idiot who hasn't yet come to complete grips with the idea that digital information is not particularly different from any other type. He's at an early stage on the crackpot scale, where he attempts to explain everything in the universe with one poorly understood basis: the DVD.

- Warren

lmao someone should put a movie out like that on dvd just for him


so procop, is ir a digital video disc, or a digital versatel disc?

I am sure that whatsupyall should be considered in the list of most dense objects...

Now I realise that there may be significant differenece between the density of (under)objects in individual brains. It seems now that some brains woudn’t in their capacity to hold info come higher than average 100 GB HD (e.g. brains suffering from logorhea – a condition in which the brain cannot hold info for longer than a couple of minutes, it must find a forum quick...I have mislead some of the readers here into believeing that they can look at the HD of their PC with disdain while envy would be more appropriate attitude....really sorry about that. P)

dvd's.. hard disks....

strangly I think the question had nothing to do with these and everything to do with mass/volume.

Memories have no mass (though great volume).

Neverthelees to keep my precious mems available some amount of mass is needed. By me it's the brain, others use possibly some different part of their bodies to process and and store their (un)happy moments...

Brain has a high level density because it contains a high number of mental objects.

I tried to translate the capability of the brain to contain the memories in the most developed substitute of some brain functions : the computer.


Naturaly there are other forms of keeping the memories than digital registration: e.g. folk songs, legends, myths.....But not all people can read these forms of memories, therefore the computer comparision.

Hopefully I made mysefl clear,

P.

who is to say the brain is anymore information dense than any other form of matter?

Originally posted by On Radioactive Waves
who is to say the brain is anymore information dense than any other form of matter?
I argue that my wristwatch is more information-dense. My wristwatch contains approximately two ounces of stainless steel, various amounts of carbon, lithium, radium, aluminum, iron, silicon, copper, titanium, nickel, zinc, sulfur, and other materials.

If you were to write down a list of each atom in the watch, and its position relative to all of the other atoms in the watch, you would have a list something like 3 x 10^23 pieces of information in a volume I estimate to be about 20 mL. That's something like 1.5 x 10^22 pieces of information per mL.

And if you wear a block of iridium around your wrist, well, you beat me.

- Warren

Atoms in the brain create structures which contain mental objects (memories). These mental object contained in the brain make the brain the most dense material from all known materials. If you ignore the mental objects it holds (sometimes it is a legitimite act considering that some brains do contain only a negligable amount of mental objects so that a watch is far more developed instrument - some readers have succesfully argued here that their watches posess more (mental) material than the whole of their brain) you wil finds yourself in a situation of "studying dance without music" : To astract the brain from its mental contains is like to astract the the sea of the water...

you're still entirly missing the point. Just because information is not of relavence does not mean its not information.

furthermore, I'll argue that the brain stores information in such a manner that the entire brain is essential to decoding that information, which leads me to believe that their is much more information in the brain than can be made use of by the brain, even if it did work at 100% capacity.

And anyhow, the question was density, and you've gone into this "information density".

My shit is the densest when I'm constipated.

- some readers have succesfully argued here that their watches posess more (mental) material than the whole of their brain)

by succesful, do you mean thereby nullifying you argument?
also, he said "density" , not total information.

do you know what density means, or just have a dense head?

The most dense material is the tissue of the human brain (if you look at the density as number of (under)objects in an object...)

my entry earlier at this thread P.

My brain is under my scalp. Wouldnt that by your definition make my scalp denser?

by succesful, do you mean thereby nullifying you argument?

by sucsesfull, I mean that some readers have convincingly shown that the tissue of their brain contains only a very limited number of mental objects. (I cannot really argue with that - they repeteadly proved that it was/is the case) My argument was/is that GENERALLY the brain contains as many mental object as to be qualified as the most dense material ever.

the only visual of mental objects I had so far in this thread was from this statement Procop is a rambling idiot who hasn't yet come to complete grips with the idea that digital information is not particularly different from any other type. He's at an early stage on the crackpot scale, where he attempts to explain everything in the universe with one poorly understood basis: the DVD.

Also you have yet to back up your statements with any solid evidence.

I tried to translate the capability of the brain to contain the memories in the most developed substitute of some brain functions : the computer.

So why speak in riddles? if thats what you wanted to say, you should have said that in the first place.



Now i will propose a question to you. How is the brain anymore information dense than any other peice of matter? I could likewise argue that the absence of an orange in my hand implies infitely many things that did not happen, thus the lack of matter posesses infinite information. This is all symbolic of my hands orange sensor. Prove me wrong.

I could likewise argue that the absence of an orange in my hand implies infitely many things that did not happen, thus the lack of matter posesses infinite information.


You are confusing logical operators with entities: an orange is an entity; "not" is a logical operator; thus ORANGE is NOT in your hand....does not really mean that "infinity of other things" is not in your hand ...


Please read some Wittgenstein eg.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953):Philosophische Untersuchungen, Blackwell, Oxford; English trans-lation Philosophical Investigation, Blackwell, Oxford, 1953.5

I argue that my wristwatch is more information-dense. My wristwatch contains approximately two ounces of stainless steel, various amounts of carbon, lithium, radium, aluminum, iron, silicon, copper, titanium, nickel, zinc, sulfur, and other materials.

Speaking about density of materials and that of the brain tissue : It was not the "information-density" of its materials that brought Apollo to the moon.

Well i can say this

The brain has a nerological mass of 1 x 10*12th power that is equal to the number 1,000,000,000,000, this many cells contain organization of DNA, and organiizsed catalytic proccese, that operates on elements P, K, Na and the active element sulfur, this establishes each cell as a kind of battery, which conducts electricty in a organized way.
Each cell is subject to a electric current, that electric current may vary between any number of amperage or micoamperage to say, generally the cell is sensetive to the 13.6 eV or any passage of elecrtical current, the intial chain reaction is conducted by 2.14 attojoules, the level of potenial current gained in the reaction from intial is relvative to the gadient of exchange, meaning how full the cell is with conductive material. Due to the electrical variation of a cell to conduct a current signal, each cell can have as many different electrical signals as 70 millivolts divided by 13.6 ev (2.1 x 10 -12 ergs/13.6 attojoules))as long as the current travels a 1 millisecond, giving the number of signals per cell the magnitude of 10*17. given this estimate of just the electrical signals that can be generated by the single nerve we cab see that each cell has more signals than there are nerves in the brain,(for various reason i find that to our advatage).
to find the density of mind we must know do simple math to determine the complexty of the mind and brain, i.e density.
the calculation to find the intereaction of the brains nerves requires that we multiply 10*12th power by 10*12th power written as 10*12 X 10*12 = 10*24
now that we have the number of connnections possible in complete form, we must look at the event that each nerve has a signal capablity of 10*17 and unify it with the number of connections, here to find the value of the brain/mind, for reasons of sanity in organization it is easier to confirm by finding the signal capcity if the entire brain this is done by multiplying the signal capicty of one cell by the total number of cells and tyhen multiplying to find the total in connections and signals to comprise the density of brain/mind. this is written has ;
10*12 X 10*17 =10*29 and then the multiple for complete unity or brain/mind written as:
10*29 X 10*29 = 10*58 as the total density of the mind/brain.

So then when qouteing the brain/mind and its ablity it makes a numder of connections equal to 10*58 in capcity, as most humans only use 10% for brain funtion and 1% for concsciousness it would seem that humans could memorize alot or think a lot, or think to act to prefrom alot.
Intersting point is that the DNA of certain humans called hybrids can produce genotypes in excess of 10*68 genotypes (human types). this would say that the chemical ablity of dna to sequence is greater than mind/brain capablity.

could some one relate to me what 10 to the 58th power would be in gigabytes, or computer hardware memoary.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Thats some very nice handwaving you do there procop.

Please provide some evidence to back up your brain density statement.

Thats some very nice handwaving you do there procop.

You are confusing the things again.

I have presented a meaning (based on some argument presented above) which you (unsuccessfully) tried to prove as not valid.

(if a meaning cannot be proved as not valid it remains valid untill disproved)

Please, use some logic.

the human 'heart'
(read 'soul')
is the densist thing I can fathom!

the human 'heart'
(read 'soul')
is the densist thing I can fathom!

I think the brain is densier than the hart: it is easier to get into someone's hart than to enter his/her thinking

interesting idea.
i think what you just said varies from person to person.

ug, actually that whole question goes into so many
'grey' areas.......

galumph!

Procop....you are an abstract master...oh, yes you are...

:D

may I be the abstract mistress?
or the abstract's mistress?
will the queen get upset?

-Mysterious Ducchess of Verbosity

no sweat, susan....you certainly may be the abstract queen.....no, problemo... *presents royal (even if theoretical) scepter to susan*

procop:

You are confusing the things again.
I have presented a meaning (based on some argument presented above) which you (unsuccessfully) tried to prove as not valid.

(if a meaning cannot be proved as not valid it remains valid untill disproved)




no, YOU are confusing things again.

For the FOURTH time, I will ask you, back up what you said.

you claimed the brain to be "information dense" or what not, now the burden of proof lies upon you.

Its not anyone elses job to prove you wrong until you have some evidence to support your statement, to which so far you have provided none.

I think ProCop's brain may be the densest of all.

- Warren

Its not anyone elses job to prove you wrong until you have some evidence to support your statement, to which so far you have provided none.

If proving me wrong is not the task of anyone else, who's job is it then? Mine? You must be kidding! (...or... you are a lawyer?)

Well before i gave the physical figure for the brain information cycle, it was 10 to the 58th power. written 10*58

one Factor that was not included in that figure was the time cycle, and it with out doubt that time plays a role in the brain capcity, brain activity of nerons operates in the 1 milli second range.
given this the factore of the brain has increased per capcity
and the calculation for sucs is written ;
10*58th x 1,000 = 10 *61( 10 * 62)

this means that the brain can make connection to the order of 10 to the 62nd power per second.

Can someone tell me what that would be in giga bytes, or computer memoary. 10*61st power per second.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Can someone tell me what that would be in giga bytes, or computer memoary. 10*61st power per second.
Memory is not measured in units of s^-1 you idiot.

- Warren

Memory for humans and animal life forms would as the stimulas of life is a matter of patterns, of neroelectric current per milli or micro second.
To much nerrual activity wouild result in a ceziure, however those that use their brain effectively and have good neron and axion melinen sheaths can use more of the brain with out such difficulties.
So then the brain can make 10^61 connects a second, i am sure there are variables, simply most people use only 10 % of the brain in active function, and 1 % is equal to concious,
I just asked how that would work out in memoary of a computure, how many giga bytes was that, does a computer make that many connection per second.
in general the figures given are averages, the active function of 1% of the brain allows for the processing of 10^61 connection per second.

whats the deal with say ing that bits dont convert to memory, bits contain how many electrical singals, how many signal can it preform before over heating, disfunction, it the brain preforms 10^61 connections per second how many bits con a comptuer run per second. so then how does that covert in to giga bits.

DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
how many signal can it preform
many bits con a comptuer run per second.
These questions don't even make sense. You're a delusional nutball.

- Warren

ok you guys are way beyond my league.

Chroot/warren I have read enough of your post to know for a fact that you are a loser, and fanatic.
Plainly it seems that you never provide any reasonable information relative to any of your post.
like i said before it would seem that your parents abused you and have damaged your brain stem. prehaps your mother was a drunk, or your father a herion addict, maybe they where inbred, i Don't know but if your parents are decsent you must be a embarrasment.
DWAYNE D.L.RABON

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Chroot/warren I have read enough of your post to know for a fact that you are a loser, and fanatic...Don't know but if your parents are decsent you must be a embarrasment.
Nanny nanny boo boo!!

- Warren

procrap:

If proving me wrong is not the task of anyone else, who's job is it then

I already proved you wrong enough, by asking you (at least 4 times if memory serves correct) to provide some kind of backing support to your statement. I posed the question - "how do we know the brain is any denser than anything else?"

You see, for your logic to work, (where someone else needs to prove you wrong) you must first have a certain amount of truth in there to be considered valid. You made a statement, which I asked you to back up. You did not write a thesis that you then sent to sciforums to be reviewed by you "colleagues".


So basicly it comes down to you thinking you can make any statement nd it will be valid until proven false. HA!


Theres a parralel sciforums comunity inside a blackhole, and a clone of prifrey lives inside the center of jupiter.
We all know this is true of course, because procop hasn't proved me wrong here.

Originally posted by Dwayne D.L.Rabon
Due to the electrical variation of a cell to conduct a current signal, each cell can have as many different electrical signals as 70 millivolts divided by 13.6 ev (2.1 x 10 -12 ergs/13.6 attojoules))as long as the current travels a 1 millisecond, giving the number of signals per cell the magnitude of 10*17. Cells don't work like this. Electrical information between neurons is binary. There is a certain voltage necessary for a neuron to activate; any voltage below the threshold voltage results in no cellular operation and any voltage above the threshold is wasted. Cells can't use varying amounts of potential to convey different meanings - they are simply either activated or inactive.

But none of that really matters, since density is not a function of information!Unless, of course, you're using some contrived, non-standard definition of density.

I think ProCop's brain may be the densest of all.

agreed!

and procop:If proving me wrong is not the task of anyone else, who's job is it then? Mine?

no , its your job to prove yourself right, which you have not come anywhere close to even attempting. (see previous post of mine :) )

And how about an information-theoretic view?

The most information-dense string is the random string. Let's imagine that we represent everything in binary, so each bit in a string can be either zero or one. A random string is one in which every bit is wholly independent of every other bit. There is no redundancy or pattern in the data. The random string is pure, 100% information. There is less information in, for example, a string of english text. There are rules of letter order, frequency, and a general structure. The bit string representing a bit of english text is less than 100% pure information. In fact, it's only about 20% pure information. The more structure you impart upon the string, the less pure information it will contain.

Let's extrapolate this to a mass of carbohydrates and water molecules and what-not: the stuff that make up the brain. The brain weighs about three pounds; so let's take three pounds of "brain raw material" and consider its information density. This three pound mass of raw material has its chemicals in a disarray, with no order, structure, or pattern. The position, orientation, etc., are all random. It's just like the random bit string -- it's 100% pure information. There is no way to represent the disarrayed mass of three pounds of raw material more simply than listing the characteristics of every single particle.

As the brain grows (say, from a zygote) from raw materials into a structured array of cells and nuclei and microtubules and what-not, it is actually decreasing in information content. The structure and patterns mean that you no longer have to describe every particle in the brain. If you were to represent all the characteristics of every particle as a string of bits, you could compress the string by taking advantage of the redundancy and patterns. The brain has a lower information content than the random soup from which it is formed.

Futhermore, as the brain learns things, it becomes more and more structured. Neuronal connections become stronger, more tightly bound, and less random. The adult, highly educated brain actually contains LESS information than the soup of raw material from which it formed.

The more you learn, the less information your brain contains.

- Warren

so by "random string", you mean it cant be compressed?

Originally posted by On Radioactive Waves
so by "random string", you mean it cant be compressed?
Yes, a random string cannot be compressed. Every bit is independent of every other bit; there is no pattern or structure to compress. The only way to represent a random string is to provide every bit of it.

- Warren

A random string is one in which every bit is wholly independent of every other bit. There is no redundancy or pattern in the data. The random string is pure, 100% information. There is less information in, for example, a string of english text.

You are mixing things up here: without applying the inteligence which recognises string of English text as such the English string differs in no way from the random string. For a non English speaker the strings are the same. The same applies to the DvDs in your head. Without a DvD player it is pure info. Pease try to concetrate on what you are writing.

The more you learn, the less information your brain contains.

I see you have accepted this thesis which I proposed at "The Development of Knowledge" here (at Sciforum). (In your entry there you called me nutts for stating what you now propose to be your opinion.)

no , its your job to prove yourself right, which you have not come anywhere close to even attempting. (see previous post of mine

I have expressed a meaning. If you consider it not correct, correct it. However willing I cannot do this job for you.

Originally posted by ProCop
You are mixing things up here: without applying the inteligence which recognises string of English text as such the English string differs in no way from the random string. For a non English speaker the strings are the same. The same applies to the DvDs in your head. Without a DvD player it is pure info. Pease try to concetrate on what you are writing.
No, retard, you're wrong. If you feed a random string into a compression engine, you'll see zero compression. If you feed an english string into a compression engine, it will be compressed. The fundamental difference is that the english string has structure; the random string does not. The compression engine does not know english -- all it knows is that there are patterns or structure in the english string, but none in the random string. Intelligence does not define information content; the dependence on one bit to other bits defines information content. It's a mathematical definition, independent of any language. In a random string, each bit is wholly independent of all other bits; in a language string (any language), each bit is generally related to other bits.
I see you have accepted this thesis which I proposed at "The Development of Knowledge" here (at Sciforum). (In your entry there you called me nutts for stating what you now propose to be your opinion.)
You are nuts. I highly doubt that you share my opinion, since you can't even grasp the concept of information content of a string that I gave above. Provide me a link to your "thesis," and I'll specifically show you how your opinion differs from mine.

- Warren

No, retard, you're wrong. If you feed a random string into a compression engine, you'll see zero compression. If you feed an english string into a compression engine, it will be compressed. The fundamental difference is that the english string has structure; the random string does not. The compression engine does not know english -- all it knows is that there are patterns or structure in the english string, but none in the random string. Intelligence does not define information content; the dependence on one bit to other bits defines information content. It's a mathematical definition, independent of any language. In a random string, each bit is wholly independent of all other bits; in a language string (any language), each bit is generally related to other bits.


Nonsense. Patterns exist in random strings. Random string can have a form of English string (by accident). Your compression engine is some gueswork crap. How would it treat an English sentence created accidentally by a random generator and the same sentence of not random origin?






<a href=http://www.sciforums.com/t9725/s/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12312>link Developmnet of knowledge</a>

Originally posted by ProCop
Nonsense. Patterns exist in random strings. Random string can have a form of English string (by accident). Your compression engine is some gueswork crap. How would it treat an English sentence created accidentally by a random generator and the same sentence of not random origin?
No, retard, you're wrong. There are no global patterns in a random string, by definition. Each bit is independent of all other bits; there are no dependencies.

I'll give you a simple example: the alphabetic string zxcvqz is six symbols long. If you were to obtain a length of random characters, you will find this six symbol combination is as likely as any other six symbol combination, and occurs with equal frequency. If you were to obtain a length of enligh text, you will find that it will never occur -- ever -- in english.

There is a fundamental, precise mathematical definition of a random string: that every symbol is entirely independent of all the others in the string. This is clearly not true of english.

The fact that a random generator has a finite probability of producing the works of Shakespeare has nothing to do with the formal definition of randomness. Given a large enough sample (i.e. even larger than the "accidental" works of Shakespeare) you will not find any global patterns.

I'm going to refer you to the comp.compression FAQ, which has sections on algorithmic information theory, and, specifically, Kolmogorov complexity, which is the mathematical formalism of randomness.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/compression-faq/

The problem may be restated as "What is the shortest program P which, when executed, produces the string S?". The size of this program is known as the Kolmogorov complexity of the string S. Some (actually most) strings are not compressible at all, by any program: the smallest representation of the string is the string itself.

The FAQ then provides some references to treatments on Kolmogorov complexity, one of which is a textbook.

Despite your ignorance, my compression engine statement is not some guesswork -- the field of algorithmic information theory is actually an important part of mathematics and computer science. Here's an abstract article on Kolmogorov complexity:

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity

link Developmnet of knowledge
The only thing I said to you was "let me guess -- you're high?"

And I really don't see any indication of information or complexity theory in your post. I see that you feel the number of unknowns in science is increasing faster than the number of knowns. This is certainly a reasonable opinion -- it'd be hard to "prove" one way or another.

- Warren

chroot

From the link you posted:

I will attach a prize of $5,000 to anyone who successfully meets this challenge. First, the contestant will tell me HOW LONG of a data file to generate. Second, I will generate the data file, and send it to the contestant. Last, the contestant will send me a decompressor and a compressed file, which will together total in size less than the original data file, and which will be able to restore the compressed file to the original state.

With this offer, you can tune your algorithm to my data. You tell me the parameters of size in advance. All I get to do is arrange the bits within my file according to the dictates of my whim. As a processing fee, I will require an advance deposit of $100 from any contestant. This deposit is 100% refundable if you meet the challenge.

Mike Goldman

Is the statement below the ends to the means, so to speak, which will ensure a prize ? Could you briefly explain the end result and why it would succeed the challenge ?

the contestant will send me a decompressor and a compressed file, which will together total in size less than the original data file, and which will be able to restore the compressed file to the original state.

Are you working on the problem ? ;)

How would it treat an English sentence created accidentally by a random generator and the same sentence of not random origin?

You avoided my question: you would have to admit that the engine can no way distinguish between the two strings unless it is familiar with the English language.

In random string patterns appear, aks any gambler you know. If there (appears to be) a random string which doesn't show from time to time a pattern it is not trully random (It would probably be a cheat produced by your machine).

Originally posted by ProCop
You avoided my question: you would have to admit that the engine can no way distinguish between the two strings unless it is familiar with the English language.
I would certainly not have to admit this at all; this is my point.
In random string patterns appear, aks any gambler you know. If there (appears to be) a random string which doesn't show from time to time a pattern it is not trully random (It would probably be a cheat produced by your machine).
A string which displays any form of global pattern is by definition not random.

Since you replied only four minutes after I posted my links to information theory and Kolmogorov complexity, I can conclude that you did not, in fact, learn about information theory and Kolmogorov complexity. Instead, you are going to stick to your uneducated hypothesis that "random strings and english strings are not fundamentally different," a hypothesis that is demonstrably false and only held by you alone.

Good luck.

- Warren

Originally posted by (Q)
Could you briefly explain the end result and why it would succeed the challenge ?
This is just an example of Kolmogorov complexity at work. The idea is that every string has some minimal representation. The pigeon-hole problem, counting problem, and so on provide the "restrictions" on how small the representation can be.

The uncompressed document is often called the 'corpus.' Essentially, by finding a decompressor and compressed document which together have fewer bits than the corpus, you have found a representation of the corpus that is smaller than the corpus itself.

The mathematics of Kolmogorov complexity are a proof that there exist strings, of any size you want, whose smallest representations are the strings themselves. Mike Goldman is simply offering to send anyone who takes his challenge a file containing a string which can be mathematically proven to be its own smallest representation -- i.e. a string which is truly random, and thus completely incompressible.
Are you working on the problem ? ;)
Not in this lifetime! :)

- Warren

As I thougth it was a cheat and waste of time to read. They see randomnes as a basically non repetitive number of random elements. If they discover a pattern (eg repeating series wich always present itself in a form (eg (very simplified) 1,2,3, 3,3 ,4,4,1,5,1,2,3) they can replace 1,2,3 pattern with a shorter presentation. Strings which contain 1,2,3 are then not random even if they were randomly produced. It is filtering randomnes with inteligence:

Imagine two containers one with white and the other with blue balloons in a big room. You open the containers and let the ballooons fly, they mingle and mingle. You can with some inteligence sort the baloons so that all the white ones wil come to the right half of the room and blue ones in the other half. But this sorting can also happen by accident, without the inteligence. But your system wil read the inteligence into this happening and declare the situation “not random”. Randomness must include patterns if they were randomly created. Your machine is flawed.

Originally posted by ProCop
As I thougth it was a cheat and waste of time to read.
You probably didn't understand most of it, knowing you. You indicate in this post that you really don't understand the meaning of probabilities.
They see randomnes as a basically non repetitive number of random elements. If they discover a pattern (eg repeating series wich always present itself in a form (eg (very simplified) 1,2,3, 3,3 ,4,4,1,5,1,2,3) they can replace 1,2,3 pattern with a shorter presentation. Strings which contain 1,2,3 are then not random even if they were randomly produced.
In a random string, (123) is just as likely as (426) or (999). You can't compress a random string by replacing (123) with a smaller representation, because it doesn't occur any more frequently than any other triplet.

In a non-random string, (123) may occur with a greater frequency than other triplets. In such a case, the string may be compressed (represented more simply) by replacing (123) with a shorter representation.

The absence or presence of (123) is not a measure of its randomness -- it is the frequency of occurence (as compared to other triplets) that can be a measure of randomness. If the triplet (123) occurs with the same frequency as all other triplets, then the string can be said to be random.
Imagine two containers one with white and the other with blue balloons in a big room. You open the containers and let the ballooons fly, they mingle and mingle. You can with some inteligence sort the baloons so that all the white ones wil come to the right half of the room and blue ones in the other half. But this sorting can also happen by accident, without the inteligence. But your system wil read the inteligence into this happening and declare the situation “not random”.
You're making the same mistake made by millions of high school students everyday -- confusing probability with frequency of measurement. Probability and statistics emerge only over a large sample set or a large amount of time.

This problem is usually expressed by the following fact: it is possible (though very unlikely) that, in the course of their random trajectories, all of the air molecules in a room might find themselves all up in the corners of the room, and you'd suffocate. It's not impossible -- just extremely unlikely.

If all that you tell me is that the air molecules suddenly all wound up in the corners (or that your balloons somehow all found themselves nicely divided) it tells me nothing about the randomness or non-randomness of the system. It's one data point. The statistics of the air molecules or balloons are only realized in the limit as the time reaches infinity. If I come into a room and find all the air in the corners, I can't tell you immediately if it's the result of an intelligence or the result of random motion; if I watch it for some time, I can be more sure. If I watch it forever, I can be precisely sure.
Randomness must include patterns if they were randomly created.
By definition, a random string is one where every symbol is unrelated to all other symbols. This is the mathematical definition of randomness. I have now said this at least three times, but you seem to be ignoring it. In such a random string, there are no global patterns -- because every symbol is entirely independent of all the other symbols. There may be patterns at small scales, but at larger scales (i.e. as the number of symbols approaches infinity) there will be none.

The argument you're making, I believe, is the following one: if you give me the short string 'a,' I cannot tell you if it's random or the product of intelligence -- and you're right. If, however, you give me a long string (the actual numerical meaning of "long" being dependent upon the mechanics of the actual problem), I can tell you immediately if it's a language or a random string, with no knowledge whatsoever of the language. In a random string, every symbol is independent; in any language, symbols are dependent upon each other.

And ProCop, since you don't belive in all this "cheating" and "wasting of time," perhaps you'd like to take up Mike Goldman's challenge?

- Warren

By definition, a random string is one where every symbol is unrelated to all other symbols. This is the mathematical definition of randomness. I have now said this at least three times, but you seem to be ignoring it. In such a random string, there are no global patterns -- because every symbol is entirely independent of all the other symbols. There may be patterns at small scales, but at larger scales (i.e. as the number of symbols approaches infinity) there will be none.


".....(i.e. as the number of symbols approaches infinity) there will be none." Are you speaking here in terms of probability of low degree or 100% impossibility?

Further you have some holy believe in randomness. In your vieuw it is more ordered than the mathematics itself.

Has it ever occured to you that randomnes may be a pure chaos and still present itself in an endless orderly pattern - (was my DvD player created (basically) by God, by accident, (by Philips?), by all three together?

You are missing a major point: chaos can spontaneously create order: look the at the world and admire its beauty (avoid mirrors).
The other possibility is listing in a monastery?
You see some other possibility I overlooked?

Originally posted by ProCop
Has it ever occured to you that randomnes may be a pure chaos and still present itself in an endless orderly pattern - (was my DvD player created (basically) by God, by accident, (by Philips?), by all three together?

...

You are missing a major point: chaos can spontaneously create order: look the at the world and admire its beauty (avoid mirrors).
The other possibility is listing in a monastery?
You see some other possibility I overlooked?
You're a complete, total, moron.

- Warren

I second the notion!

Procop, you are a complete crackpot, not worthy of having a discusion with because you intentionally ignore how ignorant your blatent statements are which you wont even back up, admitting yourself that any more spoken word on the subject would have you prove yourself wrong.

By definition, a random string is one where every symbol is unrelated to all other symbols.

Such string does not exist. Imagine you have two nummers, 1,2 and the "random generator" produces the following string:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
the chanche that the following nummer wil be two is higher than chance that it wil be 1. They are related this way.

Further. Randomnes in eternity must eventually create order. With the endlessly encreasing number of endless random strings the chance of randomly created endless orderly string encreases. After the endless random proceses in the space not by miracle, not by god but by an inevitable accident the universe came into being.

Originally posted by ProCop
Such string does not exist. Imagine you have two nummers, 1,2 and the "random generator" produces the following string:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
the chanche that the following nummer wil be two is higher than chance that it wil be 1. They are related this way.
No, retard, you're wrong. This is the same trick that's played on gamblers all around the world -- you think if you see red enough times in row, you're more likely to see black on the next spin. This is not correct at all! Each spin of the roulette wheel is entirely independent of its history. It doesn't matter if it rolled red a million times in a row -- the next spin has exactly a 50% chance of being red the next time, too. Each spin is not dependent on past spins. Each spin is entirely unrelated to other spins. It is random.
Further. Randomnes in eternity must eventually create order. With the endlessly encreasing number of endless random strings the chance of randomly created endless orderly string encreases. After the endless random proceses in the space not by miracle, not by god but by an inevitable accident the universe came into being.
This doesn't even makes any sense, so I'm not going to respond to it.

- Warren

Why do you not provide your suggestion of the densiest matter, in place of expressing repeatedly your dicontent with my suggestion. It would be a more productive attitude. were you in such a posesiton of knowledge not to only oposing others but to make your own propositions....

No, retard, you're wrong. This is the same trick that's played on gamblers all around the world -- you think if you see red enough times in row, you're more likely to see black on the next spin. This is not correct at all! Each spin of the roulette wheel is entirely independent of its history. It doesn't matter if it rolled red a million times in a row -- the next spin has exactly a 50% chance of being red the next time, too. Each spin is not dependent on past spins. Each spin is entirely unrelated to other spins. It is random.

Well, you are right about the wheel. (Nevertheless I consider the fact that this is true as appalling one)

Good lord, this argument is insane. The densest material that anyone will ever encounter under normal circumstances is
iridium, with a mass of 22,650 kg/cubic meter. Happy?

Originally posted by Nasor
Good lord, this argument is insane. The densest material that anyone will ever encounter under normal circumstances is
iridium, with a mass of 22,650 kg/cubic meter. Happy?
Yes, I'm pretty happy with that. :) I just like to take any opportunity to point out how stupid ProCop is.

- Warren

The densest material that anyone will ever imagine is a contracted universe one second before the Big Bang. (Because the human brain will get the second place, I recognise losing the argument.P)

Originally posted by ProCop
Because the human brain will get the second place, I recognise losing the argument.No. As I said, iridium has a density of 22,650 kg/m^3. The human brain probably has a density around 1,000 kg/m^3, so it's not nearly as dense as iridium. It's also way behind platinum, gold, uranium, lead, and many others that are too numerous to list. The brain isn't even close to the densest material on earth. Sorry.

In the sciforum density contest between the human brain and iridium one can conclude:

Human brain wins the first place in the contest (number of objects in an object) because the brain contains more mental images than iridium does.

In the contest of mass/volume density the brain gets the honorable second place, while iridium comes in as last but one.

Human brain wins the first place in the contest (number of objects in an object) because the brain contains more mental images than iridium does.


Iridium contains more iridium electron configurations than a brain. Your statement proves nothing, other than brain information density is a mind blowing subject for you.

I do not really care about the density (of any object) (any table on the google will oversuply the info...) I just hate rereading and rewriting the obvious. Herman Hesse proposed the folowing idea:
(paraphrased)

<i> If I see only a knee of a girl, I can easily paint her face, the curves of her knee, rightly applied can be translated into the whole of her...</i>

Since it is not possible to know everything I try to built the picture of the "whole" from its knee. Many do the same though they would not readily admit it. Many "painters" try to collect as much info as posible and put it on the canvas hoping that the picture will then appear in the collection they gathered - maybe. The science ignores hardly to prove concepts. I like them. The concept of information density (in the sense of number of objects in an object) is hard to prove. Though, it doesn't stop me from looking at it with an open mind. As Chroot suggested earlier, an open mind contains more mental images than a closed one (the less structure the more info)...

I hope this explains my attitude a bit.

[QUOTE])because the brain contains more mental images than iridium does. /[QUOTE]


how do you figure? those "mental images" are merely memories? does that count?

how do you figure? those "mental images" are merely memories? does that count?

In order to store memories (as I explained earlier, it is lot of data) a brain must contain a mechanism capable of containing (on a very small place) an emormous quantity of data. I believe it is the densiest piece of matter (in the terms of being able to hold so many data on RAM basis). Even though these memories have no mass to contain them you would need a lot of matter (celuloid, paper, silicon) trucksful of it....and still get back low quality pictures.

How do you know what the information storage capacity of the brain is? Consider a DVD movie, which is about 4 GB of data; the human brain will never be able to store the movie data as accurately as the DVD will. Sure, you could watch the movie several times until you have the story memorized, but it would still always be at best a 'fuzzy' memory. While you would have an overall idea of what happens in the movie, you would never be able to reproduce it as accurately as the DVD would.

Originally posted by Nasor
How do you know what the information storage capacity of the brain is? Consider a DVD movie, which is about 4 GB of data; the human brain will never be able to store the movie data as accurately as the DVD will. Sure, you could watch the movie several times until you have the story memorized, but it would still always be at best a 'fuzzy' memory. While you would have an overall idea of what happens in the movie, you would never be able to reproduce it as accurately as the DVD would.
Quite correct -- the brain is not exceptional for the amount of information it stores -- it's exceptional for the many things it can do with so little information.

- Warren

Regarding most dense objects...

Now, keep in mind my complete lack of education in relativity and all, but if mass and energy are equivalent, would not a gamma ray burst be equivalent to a very massive object?

Originally posted by Adam
Regarding most dense objects...

Now, keep in mind my complete lack of education in relativity and all, but if mass and energy are equivalent, would not a gamma ray burst be equivalent to a very massive object?
Massive, sure... but dense?

- Warren

Ah yes, of course. I've been awake more than 24 hours now. So another question. What volume does a gamma ray burst occupy initially? Unknown, I'm sure. But if a very small region? I doubt that, I'm just wondering.

How do you know what the information storage capacity of the brain is? Consider a DVD movie, which is about 4 GB of data; the human brain will never be able to store the movie data as accurately as the DVD will. Sure, you could watch the movie several times until you have the story memorized, but it would still always be at best a 'fuzzy' memory. While you would have an overall idea of what happens in the movie, you would never be able to reproduce it as accurately as the DVD would.

Brains is even more accurate then DvD. Consider recognising faces of people. Also in dreams the places and details are very accurate. That you cannot always recall the memories is due to the mechanisms which separate you from memories ( to be able to use the brains capacity for the present happenings). I have very clear dreams with vivid presentation of different events. Events which I consciously do not rerun. To have such spatial presentation of reality on DvD you would have to reckon on thousands of gigabytes per DvD-hour.

Re:Chroot:

Quite correct -- the brain is not exceptional for the amount of information it stores -- it's exceptional for the many things it can do with so little information



You are relaying too much on the brain as you know it. I have full respect for your personal experience but please do not try to generalise it on all brains.


-------------------------------------------
It is quite obvious that ideas have the capacity to "move objects" eg. I can built a house. Therefore ideas can influence matter and have therefore mass. Were it not so I would not be able to build the house. The mass of ideas would then indeed be in some form of energy as was suggested by Adam

Originally posted by ProCop
You are relaying too much on the brain as you know it. I have full respect for your personal experience but please do not try to generalise it on all brains.
Neurologists would say the brain has only a moderate capacity for information storage, but an amazing ability to deal with partial bits and pieces of information. The fact that a person has a great deal of trouble memorizing a million-digit long string of numbers is but one piece of evidence that brains don't store information that way.

Last time I checked, you weren't a neurologist... or even one of high-school intelligence.
Therefore ideas can influence matter and have therefore mass.
Mass is defined by the ability to curve space, and as the proportionality constant between forces and resulting accelerations. I fail to see how "ideas" have either of these properties.

- Warren

Mass is defined by the ability to curve space, and as the proportionality constant between forces and resulting accelerations. I fail to see how "ideas" have either of these properties.

Can the explanation of your failing to see how ideas can have mass be in the fact that you do not have ideas?

Damn! Procop is still at it!!!?

The concept of information density (in the sense of number of objects in an object) is hard to prove.


thats why I asked you FOUR times to back it up. You keep mixing this biological memory with digital computer memory. I'm sorry to say, they dont work the same. Apples and oranges.

Originally posted by ProCop
Can the explanation of your failing to see how ideas can have mass be in the fact that you do not have ideas?
No, you're an idiot. See? That explains it all nicely.

- Warren

They have mass simpoly because they are stored as mass.

And yes, Procop is an idiot!

No, you're an idiot. See? That explains it all nicely

Calling somebody names means loosing the argument due to the inability to contradict effectively the proposition....

I see you're winning your own fantasy argument, by not providing any support for your theory. Nice.

I see you're winning your own fantasy argument, by not providing any support for your theory. Nice.


I really did my best to explain what my proposition was/is and I have backed up it with a sound reasoning using the comparison with the computer memory capacity and so on. If you cannot grasp the concept and you also cannot successfuly argue a contra proposal, then admit it and do not let yourself slip into namescalling.

But anyway, arguing a point is generally nicer if you are opposed, because oposition inhances thinking, you were of great help in that proces - I thank you for that. Good night.

procop: I wouldn't resort to name calling if you would have responded to my comments on your theory. I asked, specificly about your concept of information density in the brain, and how it relates to information density of anything else. However since you are so dense yourself, and only respond to name calling, I had to point out what an idiot you are.


Our brains do not work like DVD's!!!!

procop: I wouldn't resort to name calling if you would have responded to my comments on your theory. I asked, specificly about your concept of information density in the brain, and how it relates to information density of anything else. However since you are so dense yourself, and only respond to name calling, I had to point out what an idiot you are.


OK. I am accepting your unwillingness to compromise and I have the following proposition:

The brain is the densest matter ever. It's density equals and surpasses the density of the contracted universe. The brain in this proposal is an inversion of the universe. (e.g. imagine you are standing alone in the universe only in your nightgown. You are in the nightgown, the universe is outside. Now invert it. (The universe comes into the nightgown and you are outside of the nightgown)). Hmmm. can't be done, too difficult...But not with the brain. The brain is an element in the universe but it can be inverted so that the universe is an element in the brain. (Happens on daily basis.) Since the universe is an element in the brain (in a sort of "contracted" form) the brain which contains the contracted universe + your mental info is actually denser than the contracted universe from my previous entry.

This, I hope, is a definitive proof of my thesis. (This thesis is well built with examples etc. I hope you are satisfied now.)

Originally posted by ProCop
The brain is the densest matter ever.
The brain has a density about the same as water -- on the order of about 1 gram per cubic centimeter.

- Warren

The brain has a density about the same as water -- on the order of about 1 gram per cubic centimeter

Sorry you have provided a not valid argument: brain contains water, water does not contain brain. Brain (mind) is the fifth dimension, its containment capacity is endless. (I am affraid that you do not posses a night gown and therefore you skipped my previous argument : the brain is an element in the universe and the universe is an element in the brain- they equal.) You artificially limit density to the touchable mass. Please reread my <a href=http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10209>DvD theory</a>. Do not let your knowledge to constrain your thinking.

Well, I think it's pretty clear what the problem is here. ProCop is using definitions of mass and density that are different from the definitions used by the rest of the world.

Here's something to consider on the brain vs. DVD argument: A 4 GB DVD can store a sequence of four billion letters. Do you know anyone who could memorize a random string of four billion characters?

Here's something to consider on the brain vs. DVD argument: A 4 GB DVD can store a sequence of four billion letters. Do you know anyone who could memorize a random string of four billion characters?

How do you come (suddenly) to a random string? Oh, you needed that to make it for the brain difficult. The DvD can "memorize" ordered strings but brain must do the same with random strings. Shame on you! The brain can memorize/produce endlessly more ordered string than DvD.

Originally posted by ProCop
How do you come (suddenly) to a random string? Oh, you needed that to make it for the brain difficult. The DvD can "memorize" ordered strings but brain must do the same with random strings. Shame on you! The brain can memorize/produce endlessly more ordered string than DvD.
Shame on him? The DVD can store 4 billion letters, of any composition you like -- random or structured. What Nasor really meant was "arbitrary," not necessarily random. Sure, the brain can memorize the sequence (1, 2, 3... 4,000,000,000) by memorizing only the pattern. The same pattern would only need two bytes to express on a DVD. This is not the point.

I'm sorry dude, but you have a very inconsistent and ad hoc view of the world -- you define terms to mean whatever you want them to mean, and then make it our business to figure out the meanings. This annoys me, and many other people. You don't thoroughly analyze your own position, or critically consider your own opinions.

There is simply no way that you can demonstrate that the brain is able to store an arbitrary string of four billion letters. No neurologist or psychologist would say that the brain is able to store anywhere close to four gigabytes of information. In fact, no one else in the world believes what you believe, because there simply is no kind of evidence for the belief. Do you really think that you alone understand the truth, and everyone else in the entire world is wrong?

No, the brain's amazing ability is not information storage; it's the ability of the brain to do so much work with so few bits and pieces of hard information.

The more and more I interact with you, the more and more convinced I am that you maintain your position only because you refuse to admit that perhaps you didn't think about something thoroughly. When backed into a corner, you simply become less and less rigorous, and just wave your hands faster and faster. I'm almost ready to just put you on my ignore list. At first you were humorously stupid -- now you're just annoyingly stupid.

- Warren

First of all, i am a complete newbee and probably i am breaking some rules with this post and feel free to flame me for not investigating the complete thread (which i didn't).

As for the information density of the brain, i agree with the point that the main ability of the brain is to make (usually highely inaccurate) conclusions based on little information. I also agree on the point that the human memory is not concrete at all. It's something extra-ordinary fuzzy and highely prone to influence afterwards (e.g. "ohh, in the old days everything was better!").

Yet, taking that into consideration, i can not help but thinking that the mind does store a lot of information (without entering the discussion whether or not it is the most dense object... i would say arguing for or against it, is an interesting waiste of time, but not necessarily my hobby). E.g. television shows seen only once a decade ago, i can still remember as beeing seen. A song that passed by unnoticed on the radio, five years later can still induce a deja vu. Now, of course, i do not remember the whole show or the whole song. And what i remember is only the sensation of heaving it seen or heard before. But clearly, by recognizing it some reference needed to be stored somewhere. And this seems to be going on a lot with: voices, faces, sounds, images. Seems that storing information in an inaccurate, not complete manner is something the brain does very well.

Best regards

Mouse!
I like that username!

Yet, taking that into consideration, i can not help but thinking that the mind does store a lot of information (without entering the discussion whether or not it is the most dense object... i would say arguing for or against it, is an interesting waiste of time, but not necessarily my hobby). E.g. television shows seen only once a decade ago, i can still remember as beeing seen. A song that passed by unnoticed on the radio, five years later can still induce a deja vu. Now, of course, i do not remember the whole show or the whole song. And what i remember is only the sensation of heaving it seen or heard before. But clearly, by recognizing it some reference needed to be stored somewhere. And this seems to be going on a lot with: voices, faces, sounds, images. Seems that storing information in an inaccurate, not complete manner is something the brain does very well.

I do not think that we (the humans) have the full control of our memory. But as you suggest we remember more than we think we remember. It has to do with voluntary and unvoluntary memory. (cq Marcel Proust The Rememberance of the Thigs Lost - in this book eating a cake opens suddenly a whole world which lyed forgotten in unvoluntary memory (we cannot recall that world but some trigger events can recall it with blindenning vividity)) Therefore it is wel possible that we remember a random string not knowing that we remember it. Then at one moment (eg. life threatenning situation we suddenly may be able to recall the string). I know that stating this as a possibility is highly speculative, but oposing it is highly speculative as wel.

There is simply no way that you can demonstrate that the brain is able to store an arbitrary string of four billion letters. No neurologist or psychologist would say that the brain is able to store anywhere close to four gigabytes of information. In fact, no one else in the world believes what you believe, because there simply is no kind of evidence for the belief. Do you really think that you alone understand the truth, and everyone else in the entire world is wrong?

These are really third rate arguments:

1/ You do not know what any neurologist or psychologist thinks about the brain capacity. (There are to many of them to have a uniform opinion)

2/ You do not know what enybody else believes or thinks about anything (the closest you can come to what they believe/think is to lisen to what they say about what they believe/think which doesn't necesarily mean that they really believe/think that).

3/ I do not really see you and On radioctive waves as the representants of the rest of the world. Were it so it wouldn't be the first instance of the world being wrong. It is just an empty statement and it is extremely polite of me to answer it.


The more and more I interact with you, the more and more convinced I am that you maintain your position only because you refuse to admit that perhaps you didn't think about something thoroughly. When backed into a corner, you simply become less and less rigorous, and just wave your hands faster and faster. I'm almost ready to just put you on my ignore list. At first you were humorously stupid -- now you're just annoyingly stupid.

It is possible to create you own virtual world (or it wil become possible soon). You can then filter your "internet" paper/world so that only pleasant and positive things will appear in it. Laughing babies, happy marriages, great discoveries and economic boom. Other aspects of the world wil then be filtered out: catastophes, deaths, diseases, divorces, failing of science, crash... This "new brave world" is or will be soon at your doorstep. You are well equipt to enter it...Many, many happy babies on your screen from now on...wow --- just on a push of a button, will you be able to resist that?

procop:

all I've been trying to point out here the whole time is that you're making some pretty difficult to back up theories. I've yet to see you provide a shred of evidence to support your views



me:
Now i will propose a question to you. How is the brain anymore information dense than any other peice of matter?
Here was the first time I asked you to give some support to your lucrative claim.

here is you handwavingYou are confusing logical operators with entities: an orange is an entity; "not" is a logical operator; thus ORANGE is NOT in your hand....does not really mean that "infinity of other things" is not in your hand ...


Nice try, but you continuously avoided responding to the question.


When backed into a corner, you simply become less and less rigorous, and just wave your hands faster and faster.
ha ha

Lessons on academic discussion:

lesson 1.
A: human brains is densetst of all all time.
B: no it is not true. CG Jung proposed that the brain may be a sort of a receiver and sender and that the info/memory is not in the brain but elsewhere.
A: Hmm, looks not probable to me but I wil consider it...
B: it sure limits the validity of your statement ...
A: Ok I agree that it is a possibility that the brain doesn't contain the memories, but if it does it is very dense...

lesson 2
A: human brains is densest of all all time.
B: nope, mouse's brain is much smaller so it is more dense than the human brain.
A:bull****, the mouse registers less than humans, lets say that proximatelly a person sees so many square meters of pictures during his/hers life (lifespan/volume of the brain/total of meters seen compared, quantifiable...)
etc.

Lesson 3
(will hopefully provided by On Radioactive Waves in his further entries)

Originally posted by ProCop
world (or it wil become possible soon). You can then filter your "internet" paper/world so that only pleasant and positive things will appear in it. Laughing babies, happy marriages, great discoveries and economic boom. Other aspects of the world wil then be filtered out: catastophes, deaths, diseases, divorces, failing of science, crash... This "new brave world" is or will be soon at your doorstep. You are well equipt to enter it...Many, many happy babies on your screen from now on...wow --- just on a push of a button, will you be able to resist that?
What?? Yeah, I'm really done with this entire discussion -- it's so pointless it pains me.

I will leave you with Step 7 of my Crackpot System: 7) Make up at least a dozen new words. Even better, reuse the same words scientists use, but give them new, entirely different, meanings. Be careful not to give them precise definitions, though; leave a little wiggle room. Using your new lexicon, you can escape the barrage of criticism you'll receive later by revealing "your" definitions piecemeal. This bait-and-switch tactic soon wears out any would-be critics; when they give up on you, pat yourself on the back for having created an impregnable fortress of a theory.

Perhaps you can see how a bit of this is going on, ProCop.

- Warren

Perhaps you can see how a bit of this is going on, ProCop.

I see. Let me point out that there is only a very thin wall between very stupid ideas and very bright ones. Unfortunately, the way to knowledge/wisdom passes through both rooms. It pains me to say, chroot, that you have a long way to go. But I am, generally, an optimist. You may change your mind.

Originally posted by ProCop
It pains me to say, chroot, that you have a long way to go. But I am, generally, an optimist. You may change your mind.
Worst response ever. :rolleyes:

Who do you think you're kidding, fuckwit?

- Warren

Worst response ever.

Who do you think you're kidding, fuckwit?



Oh, you have changed your mind already. I have underestimated you. You are certainly no slow learner!

Originally posted by chroot
The DVD can store 4 billion letters, of any composition you like -- random or structured. What Nasor really meant was "arbitrary," not necessarily random. Sure, the brain can memorize the sequence (1, 2, 3... 4,000,000,000) by memorizing only the pattern. Being able to count from one to four billion isn't the same as memorizing all the numbers from one to foyr billion. Counting in order is just using an algorithm to determine what number will come next; you don't have to memorize that the number after 55555 will be 55556, you just take 55555 and perform an operation on it, then see what the result is. It would take you a great deal of storage space to store a sequence of billions of digits in memory, but only a very small amount of space to store a program that would count by integers. I'm not sure if that's what you were saying or not.

Of course I suppose you could always argue that a counting algorithm is merely a very efficient form of compression that allows you to store billions of numbers very efficiently - but then again, the informational entropy of a sequence of ordered numbers will always be very low.

But in any case, it still doesn't affect my point that a DVD can store any sequence of 4 billion letters and the human brain can't.

I was sticking with letters instead of numbers because there is a simple 1 letter = 1 byte correspondence when storing letters on a computer. Figuring out the storage space for numbers is tricky, since some numbers take more space to store than others.

Being able to count from one to four billion isn't the same as memorizing all the numbers from one to foyr billion. Counting in order is just using an algorithm to determine what number will come next; you don't have to memorize that the number after 55555 will be 55556, you just take 55555 and perform an operation on it, then see what the result is.

I am afraid you both build your opinion on the wrong basis. You see the memory as a computing process, where in a memory register the number 5555555 wil be stored as abstract digits.

I propose that this nummer and most of other info is "photographed" and stored as a picture in the memory. When needed the brain "scans" the picture and reads the abstract data.
I am sure that this happens because when I look for a piece of text in a book (do not know the number of the page at that moment) mostly I remember perfectly the lay-out of the page (eg. proximately ends of allineas), find it, and then read the content.
If this being so there is no difference what so ever between random and non random strings.

Graphically registered, letters and numbers are equal. The memory is uncomputed graphics. Memory actually substitutes the yesterday's world, provides the info in a GRAPHIC representation of the past event and this past event is scanned and computed (at the moment when you give some mental attention to this event). This gives the brain even more info/density then previously thought, no compression, many pictures....

Originally posted by ProCop
I am afraid you both build your opinion on the wrong basis. You see the memory as a computing process, where in a memory register the number 5555555 wil be stored as abstract digits.
This is exactly the opposite of what I said. I explicitly said that storing data is not the same as using an algorithm to generate data.

This is exactly the opposite of what I said. I explicitly said that storing data is not the same as using an algorithm to generate data.

Misunderstanding: what I ment was

100 x 10 = 1000

will be strored in memory not as the numbers with some explicit mathematic value, but as a screenprint, a graphic picture. (wouldn'matter if it were a picture of a cat). The thinking department of the brain will at some moment get the picture from the memory and operate on it...To memorise graphically the data would mean that it does not matter if the string is random or ordered.

Could some one answer this question for me. why dont we have gravity powered generators. and I dont mean hydro power,If I can make a gravity powered generator just by using weighted gears one would think others have tried to or have had the same idea before.

Originally posted by Guy Trinidad
Could some one answer this question for me. why dont we have gravity powered generators. and I dont mean hydro power,If I can make a gravity powered generator just by using weighted gears one would think others have tried to or have had the same idea before.
All sorts of machines trade potential energy of weights for other forms of energy. This is not new.

If you're asking "why don't we build perpetual motion machines that can derive free power from gravity," the answer is that they can't exist.

- Warren

Warren I appreacite your reply and always enjoy reading your comments, but could I get a second reply on my question about gravity powered generators. because I can see in my mind so clear and I am drawing it up now. it is flooding my mind daily.

Originally posted by Guy Trinidad
Warren I appreacite your reply and always enjoy reading your comments, but could I get a second reply on my question about gravity powered generators. because I can see in my mind so clear and I am drawing it up now. it is flooding my mind daily.
Go for it, man. Draw up your plans, describe your apparatus in good detail, and we'll analyze what it does.

Or better yet, go build one. :)

- Warren

...the iron (Fe) atom's nucleus is the most tightly packed of all elements on the Periodic Table.

...then there's the Bose-Einstein Condensate, a substance manufactured at just above 0 Kelvin (absolute zero).

...neutronstars, quarkstars, blackholes and glue-balls!

I love gravity machines. Thats why I'm obsessed with Trebuchet catapults. I'm sure there must be a way of levering an object to 11.2 km per second but I don't have the cold hard cash to go and build those kind of monstrous money pits. Some Lord in England spent around seventy thousand pounds building a reproduction Treb which actually worked. Spends his days hurling dead horses and cars around his property. Eccentric? Maybe a little. Isn't that the rich term for insane. Anyway, models are great fun. Go to it. Post us a picture of it when you are done.

This 'argument' among brains, memory, storage space, and density is becoming more heated and less of a disagreement. Why not leave ignorance to its own (I'm not taking sides or speaking of one general side) and one's personal beliefs to their own instead of doing what I'm doing and trying to make the other, who will probably hold onto their opinions for the sole purpose of pride, believe your side? (Ironic how one can find hypocrisy in the most subtle areas) Let us respect the other's opinions whether we agree or not; there is no reason to use harsh, personal statements that explain nothing and only cause a rise in this metaphoric temperature.

Now, whoever brought up the statement about atoms---that's pretty interesting, something I never knew.

Personally I believe either a black hole or neutron star are the densest (at least known) objects.

As for earthly objects, this is strange. One can use various devices to increase the density (or more so compact the object itself) of an object... thus I'm not exactly sure on this one--nor am I on the black holes/neutron stars. They're just my two cents.

Edit: Random moment: What's this? Free sheet music? Sometimes ads can be useful...

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/03/07/quark_plasma.html

Densest matter in existence

Other than that for earthly substances:

Hydrogen gas is the least dense substance in the world, at 0.08988g/cc. Hydrogen solid is the most dense substance in the world, at 70.6g/cc.

Quark matter is not denser than a black hole.

This is a no-brainer.

The densest object in the world is definitely my wife!

Quark matter is not denser than a black hole.
Well, since the singularity that comprises a black hole is concieved of as a point, the concept of density - mass per unit volume - is meaningless. No one speaks of the "density" of a black hole.

If the volume of a black hole is zero, then a black hole with a mass of 1 kg has the same density as a black hole with a mass of 10E100 kg.

This is a no-brainer. The densest object in the world is definitely my wife!She is only the second densest. Unless unable to snoop in your posts here. (First place goes to you for posting that.) :D

Isn't the densest element Osmium?

Isn't the densest element Osmium?from memory, I think so, at least among the "natural elements."

If the volume of a black hole is zero, then a black hole with a mass of 1 kg has the same density as a black hole with a mass of 10E100 kg.
Yes. Infinite. Which is just one of the absurdities you encounter at a singularity. Generally why they say that the "theory breaks down" given a singularity. Is it really a truly dimensionless point? Who knows. The theory breaks down. Nevertheless, there is no measure of the density of a black hole. Meaningless.

And yes, osmium is the densest naturally occurring element.

I thought the most dense natural objects are diamonds.

Warren I appreacite your reply and always enjoy reading your comments, but could I get a second reply on my question about gravity powered generators. because I can see in my mind so clear and I am drawing it up now. it is flooding my mind daily.

Unfortunately this thing that you can "see in your mind" is based on a bad model. For thousands of years, humans were sure they understood how things worked. If you threw things up, they came back down, heavy things fell faster (false), etc. It turns out the human brain is very bad at making an ACCURATE model of even simple Newtonian physics. It took all the way until Newton for someone to formalize and lay out the rules as they ACTUALLY were (which in a lot of cases was counter what people FELT the universe acted like). In your head you may feel as though this machine can do what you say, but Newton's laws (and subsequently, relativity as well) predicts that it CANNOT. What you're talking about is free energy. It doesn't exist. Entropy is a constant, we cannot create new energy, and even the energy we have will become less and less useful as the universe approaches heat death.

Gravity is simply force. Its useful for storing energy, as gravitational potentially energy, but you cannot get energy from nothing. Sorry.

-AntonK

The densest material that anyone will ever imagine is a contracted universe one second before the Big Bang.

If matter is energy , and energy is matter .... then you probably have a point .... closely followed by a black hole ....

And by the way - does anyone one know, what the matter/energy ratio is in a black hole ????

After all it seems that massive amounts of energy can be compressed into a singularity .....

:p :m:

And just to round up the force of gravity ...(forgetting the socalled negative pressure from "Dark Energy " ) ..... on this learned thread ...... (I so far counted the word retard beeing used at least 3 times here on the thread ) ............

An object of matter has gravity ? .... right ?
But if the same amount of matter turns into pure energy ... then the gravity of this energy is Zero ???? ....Right ? ..... or is it right ???

Anyway, I wish you all a very Happy New Year ....

http://www.wikiality.com/Gravity

:m: :p

I always knew the truthiness of gravity was highly suspiscious.

Dubya isn't the most dense object?

But if the same amount of matter turns into pure energy ... then the gravity of this energy is Zero ???? ....Right ? ..... or is it right ??
Wrong. Next question?

Isn't the densest element Osmium?

at room temperature, generally solid hydrogen is about 3 times more dense.

at room temperature, generally solid hydrogen is about 3 times more dense. That is interesting - something I did not know already. Do you know its structure? I.e. Is it crystalline? If so, the unit cube spacing must be small compared to H2's molecule separation, I would think.* I have a hard time understanding this but am thinking it must be the electrons are not bound to any proton, (Thus would be a very good conductor** - Is it?) and the protons can get relatively close to each other (the electron "cloud" shielding one from another until they get to small separation and repel each other) - Is how it can be true?
---------------------------------------
*This because I have read that there is more hydrogen in gallon of liquid NH3 than in gallon of liquid Hydrogen, H2. This and because decomposition of Ammonia is exothermic have made me wonder and suggest that Ammonia may be the way to transport / store Hydrogen for cars with fuel cells.
**As the phonons must be very rare at solid H temperature, perhaps it is also the most electrically conductive “normal substance” known? (Super conductors excluded of course and assuming it is not also a super conductor, or at least has some small temperature range where it is solid and normal.) I know essentially nothing about solid hydrogen - tell more, or I will be forced to search.

And just to round up the force of gravity ...(forgetting the socalled negative pressure from "Dark Energy " ) ..... on this learned thread ...... (I so far counted the word retard beeing used at least 3 times here on the thread ) ............

An object of matter has gravity ? .... right ?
But if the same amount of matter turns into pure energy ... then the gravity of this energy is Zero ???? ....Right ? ..... or is it right ???

Anyway, I wish you all a very Happy New Year ....

http://www.wikiality.com/Gravity

:m: :p

The gravity of that energy is the same as it was when it was matter.

at room temperature, generally solid hydrogen is about 3 times more dense.
Under normal ambient conditions (temperature and pressure) osmium is the densest naturally occurring substance.

Under varying artificial conditions I can make anything "the densest".

at room temperature, generally solid hydrogen is about 3 times more dense.

Solid hydrogen at room temperature?

Solid hydrogen...?
Time to do a Google search.

what's the most dense object ever such as iron,metal,etc?

Dwayne has it right, it's Iridium, if we are talking about an element.

Neutron stars and black holes are dense, but we have no direct measurements of them of course, just calculated figures, so I think Iridium is your answer.

So wait...
most dense object - Neutron stars/ atomic nuclei
most dense element- osmium/iridium
most dense gem- platinum
most dense enviroment- black holes(unspecified)

Chatha:

Are you sure Aggregated Diamond Nanorods are the most -dense-? And not simply the -hardest-?

I saw this whilst passing, and in answer to op question, isn't the most dense object lightgigantic.

Solid hydrogen at room temperature?

no. closer to absolute zero.

carrying on from Osmium -> yes at room temperature. But in general solid hydrogen is about 3 times denser. it's density is 70.6 g/cc osmium is 26 I think. And no you can't make anything densest. If we asume that a material X is densest as a solid than a gas or a liquid; Hydrogen is the densest material on earth in it's solid form as it has the smallest atomic mass. This works, by using the metaphor for balls in a jug, if we fill the jug with larger spheres they will leave alot of space open, the smaller the sphere the less space is left inside the jug... It's not that hard to understand is it.

That is interesting - something I did not know already. Do you know its structure? I.e. Is it crystalline?

Yes, When solid, the crystal structure is hcp (hexagonal close-packed).

....Hydrogen is the densest material on earth in it's solid form as it has the smallest atomic mass. This works, by using the metaphor for balls in a jug, if we fill the jug with larger spheres they will leave alot of space open, the smaller the sphere the less space is left inside the jug... It's not that hard to understand is it.This may be part of the reason, but surely something else is main cause. Perhaps what I guessed in post 142.

For example, He4 has four times the mass of Hydrogen and its two electrons are also both in the same n=1 orbital as hydrogen‘s one electron. As each is attracted to the nucleus by two positive charges, not just the one of hydrogen, if anything* the He4 atom should be slightly smaller and four times heavier. It is not the nucleus that determines the volume each atom must occupy. It is the size of the outer orbital.
-----------------------------
*I am just reasoning, and could be wrong; someone can look up the radius of the Helium atom and compare to the Bohr radius (the hydrogen radius' name), but I would be very surprised if it is large enough to compensate for the factor of four mass advantage Helium has.

Chatha:

Are you sure Aggregated Diamond Nanorods are the most -dense-? And not simply the -hardest-? Thanks

no. closer to absolute zero.

carrying on from Osmium -> yes at room temperature. But in general solid hydrogen is about 3 times denser. it's density is 70.6 g/cc osmium is 26 I think. And no you can't make anything densest. If we asume that a material X is densest as a solid than a gas or a liquid; Hydrogen is the densest material on earth in it's solid form as it has the smallest atomic mass. This works, by using the metaphor for balls in a jug, if we fill the jug with larger spheres they will leave alot of space open, the smaller the sphere the less space is left inside the jug... It's not that hard to understand is it. I get your point- smallest atomic mass. I am confused though. If the mass of hydrogen's proton and neutron(atomic mass) is smaller than most other elements... what about the volume? Remember density is m/v. So a smaller mass doesn't make more density. Care to explain?

This is an extension to post 157 (I just returned from my swim and was thinking more on the relative density of isolated atoms while swimming):

I bet that some of the later noble gases (filled outer shells or orbitals) are even denser than He4 despite having electrons in shells more distant from the center. This because the ratio of neutron to protons in the nucleus is larger than unity.
From my dictionary:
Radon, Rn, has 86Ps and atomic weight of 222 or 126Ns.
Lawrencium, Lw, has 103Ps and atomic weight of 257 or 154Ns

I doubt is any one has measured the radius of Lw, but surely Radon's is known and it is 222 times heavier than Hydrogen. Thus if radon's radius is not more than cube root of 222 times the Bohr radius, it is denser than Hydrogen on an atom by atom basis. For example: If the diameter of Radon atom is only 6 times larger than Hydrogen's, then Radon is denser than Hydrogen atom by atom. Anyone willing to dig out the facts?

If solid Hydrogen is a good electrical conductor (and I bet it is), then I am reasonable sure my guess in post 142 as to why it is so dense is basically correct. (But, quantum mechanics is not doubt making the full answer/ reason more complex.) I.e. the consideration being offered by others about "hydrogen being the smallest /lightest" etc. play little, if any, role in the explanation of solid Hydrogen's high density; however, the fact that when you free hydrogen's one electron from being bound to a particular nucleus (proton) and let it belong to the entire crystal, then there is no electron left to make the protons stay at least two Bohr radii apart. That is very important, if it happens, and a unique feature of hydrogen.

That is why high electrical conductive, if it exists, is evidence for my POV in post 142. (If it is highly conductive, it might be best to regard solid Hydrogen as an "ordered plasma" as the positive ions are at regular sites, not randomly "flying around.")

I'm confused with all this advanced terms. But I think Osmium's nuclues has to be the densest. That is if we don't include electrons since their mass is negligible. Bohr's radius is also negligible because the nuclues will always occupy the space it wants(that is if at all it does). But we know that certain nucleus weight more than some. We have 3 yr old kids, 17 yr old kids, and 35 yr old adults, and regardless of their space they weigh different mass. The best way to determine density is to calibrate the mass, the bigger the mass the better, which is why osmium's nucleus should be the most dense. Assuming all elements have a nucleus, and all nucleus vary in size and space. Let me know if there is anythng wrong with my assertion

I get your point- smallest atomic mass. I am confused though. If the mass of hydrogen's proton and neutron(atomic mass) is smaller than most other elements... what about the volume? Remember density is m/v. So a smaller mass doesn't make more density. Care to explain?Now you are thinking clearly. Read my posts. But most Hydrogen does not have any neutron; however all three types have an electron.

This may be part of the reason, but surely something else is main cause. Perhaps what I guessed in post 142.

For example, He4 has four times the mass of Hydrogen and its two electrons are also both in the same n=1 orbital as hydrogen‘s one electron. As each is attracted to the nucleus by two positive charges, not just the one of hydrogen, if anything* the He4 atom should be slightly smaller and four times heavier. It is not the nucleus that determines the volume each atom must occupy. It is the size of the outer orbital.
-----------------------------
*I am just reasoning, and could be wrong; someone can look up the radius of the Helium atom and compare to the Bohr radius (the hydrogen radius' name), but I would be very surprised if it is large enough to compensate for the factor of four mass advantage Helium has.

I am confused with the underlined statement. I thought the electrons determine the number of orbitals, charges determine the spin, and the electron itself is determined by the nucleus.

I am confused with the underlined statement. I thought the electrons determine the number of orbitals, charges determine the spin, and the electron itself is determined by the nucleus.No. Not quite right. We now understand completely the periodic table. Basically no two electrons can be in the same quantum state.* All have an intrinsic spin (up or down) so every quantum state with "quantum numbers" can hold two. These states are distinguished by their quantum numbers. (It has been a long time so I make make some erros, but you will get the idea.)

Most important number is "n" = 1,2,3, ... and is the Shell index or crudely distance from the nucleus, (but not on any linear scale) with n=1 being the lowest energy level and closest to the nucleus.

Then the electon's angular momentum usually called "L" which is also quantized. (Actually lower case "l" is used, but that looks too much like 1 so I am using capital L here.) L can take values 0,1,2,3... but must also satisfy L < n. so for the first shell, with n= 1 only L = 0 is allowed.

Thus H has its electron in the n =1 & L = 0 and He does have two of these electrons and then the n = 1 shell is full. (I am only speaking of the "ground state" - if the hydrogen is "excited," then any n is possible.) Lithium has 3 elecrons, these same two in the n = 1 shell and the third must go in the n =2 shell but now there are two possible values of L (0 & 1) and they differ slightly in energy, especially in a magnetic field.

To fill the n = 2 shell, you need two of the l = 0 electrons (one up other down) so this is the 4 electron atom, Breylium (I think). It has the same outer shell as He, but entirely different chemisty as the n =2 shell is not yet full.

Now I must tell a about a third way electons can be different, i.e. still another quantum number, usually called "m" which can take both + and - values but |m|= or < L is required so the atom with 5 electrons has the new one in the n =2, L = 1 and m = -1, 0 or 1 state. (these state do not differ in energy except when in a magnetic field, but there always is a very weak one from the magnetic moment of the nucleus if that is not zero.) Same is true for atoms 6,7, 8, 9 and 10. Then this n = 2 shell is full and you have Neon.

I will not write all down these first 10 electron configurations (their quantum numbers) but note that I have already explained the first four. Here is